Good discussion guys! Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you've been able to avoid getting personal. excellent!
Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references. much appreciated. My only issue so far is with Giovanni's statement: > The core <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core> of the Sun is considered to extend from the center to > about 20-25% of the solar radius.[46] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47> It has a density of up to > 150 g/cm3[47] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48> [48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49> (about 150 times the density of water) and a > temperature of close to 15.7 million kelvin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin> (K)[48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49> . There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun's core or its density. The 'accepted' figures come from theoretical models; and applying those models to related variable. As far as the radius is concerned, your use of the phrasing, ". is considered to extend." indicates your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun's core radius is just that. and *estimate, not backed up by direct measurement*. However, when you state, "It has a density of upto." seems to be a bit too 'definite' for my taste. This is a major problem I find in scientific papers. *Definitive* wording has crept into papers where it doesn't belong; it is not warranted by the DIRECT experimental measurements. -Mark Iverson From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational The core <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core> of the Sun is considered to extend from the center to about 20-25% of the solar radius.[46] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47> It has a density of up to 150 g/cm3[47] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48> [48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49> (about 150 times the density of water) and a temperature of close to 15.7 million kelvin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin> (K)[48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49> . On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein condensate or something similar? Plasma is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of gases are dissociated & then due to high temperature it suffers further <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas> heating & finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube -1032 part./meter <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas> cube]. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure, so it can be compacted. Giovanni On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: >From You "Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they work" >From Me: 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been established to date Both of these contradict your statement above. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking at the center of the earth? Giovanni On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html
